lA)as »4- £)]?j<d'iVC|^ wrtasbyxflkle } urd{r u*£.C.
■for 4ke, Sbrlt cowrfj 4t> dflncUwU Da -ilt record beJbrt i-H- ik^cf no
r6aPN>ib^ PtiLcA 'P^dnf' Could 1x?(&v£ wdj cu?Wi^^
oIuaV^ \V^rwofA:\or\ VAo^'XlI.
?o-Dir !

3.. U^^Ler .2? U.SX 13^1 MXO or (cfoM ) aM+U SAJe
CqwcAs foulurt b> prov^AsL a -full OrX -(Wr '",Vn ^w5/a^ -fo
allow p^i'-ftOner -)iji ^ppr-lun^Kj }z> -W^ >k dta, j*\of/i?A-b Si/^prtf-f
DCnrvo bflWnA - H'Sulf i a Da UArCOJO/vakVand <fcckso A iACD
big.

7 prtft^-ed jkd'Le prot&lA <Wji .UAlf^SliOAA
Pudr

3, U?«J fU Sftxk. DoiAfVs olfth^nn.V«t»W 'Bvtff Batar iwfl* ^ ntrf
i'rckrrdAjJ'idrs CokW/' l "fo or oa ' UrsrtaSo^iK cufbdi^ duringD
7Opplb^fi^ <f d-eA^ hldisleJ %prtr^ toorf Uw .

Was it objectively reasonable for the State courts to conclude that no reasonable factfinder could believe that Baker was in custody during interrogation?